J.C.MacSwell

All of it will go into translation.

It will spin and translate (wave good-bye to it) It will move away in the direction of the force and you will move in the opposite direction. Depending on the alignment of the force with respect to your centre of mass you may spin also.

What I was trying to show here is that any force acting on a rigid body that is not acting through the centre of mass is equivalent to an equal force in the same direction acting through the centre of mass plus a rotational moment.

I think this is where you are going wrong. ALL of the force acts to translate the centre of mass. F=X, if X+Y=F then Y=0 Picture 100 particles. Any configuration. Some glued together rigidly. Some totally detached. Some attached by elastics. Now apply a force upwards on any particle or particle group. Call that force F. F will equal ma, where a will be the acceleration upwards and m will be the mass of the system.(elastics and all) Redo the math for the same thing adding a mass the size of Jupiter to the system where Jupiter is 100 miles away and is totally unaffected. F will equal ma, where a will be the acceleration upwards and m will be the mass of the system including Jupiter. Redo the math for the same thing adding a mass the size of Jupiter to the system where Jupiter is 100 miles away and is the only body affected by the force (upwards again whatever that means in the reference frame you are using) F will equal ma, where a will be the acceleration upwards and m will be the mass of the system including Jupiter. If F accelerates the mass in translation and in rotation it doesn't matter. F will equal ma. (if you sum the "rotational accelerations in the upward, or any direction they will cancel out) If this seems odd it is probably because you intuitively feel that since F may be doing work to stretch elastics or cause rotations etc that maybe some of F is "used up" in this regard. It is not. What is different and does need to be divided up is the energy or work done by the force F. The work done by F is very different in each of the above cases.

I'm thinking in terms of the masses themselves. Their receding velocities (regardless of why) would require the same change in momentum to slow down or speed up??

I think that's right (the second part, not so sure about my armchair cosmology ).

Why does the expansion OF space have MOMENTUM? Is it assumed to hold to the same equations as an explosion IN space?

I like it already! I would like to see a few more competing theories but you have to adapt them when you have a contradiction or you can add/remove assumptions until they collapse under their own "weight". I read a book by British astronomer Martin Reese "Just 6 numbers" where he says he was originally against the Big Bang Theory, then converted by the evidence to being 90% certain 10 or 15 years ago, and now is 99% certain. seems rather high considering all the basic things we don't know. What are your odds? I'm a Steady State Theorist at heart but I'll go with 50% for some form of the Big Bang, 25% for some form of the Steady State Theory and 25% for "something else". Be interesting to see if people who are really knowledgable about these things would be committed in the 90+ percent range. Edit: I think a universe based on the 3Dsurface of a 4D hypersphere that slowed in expansion forever but never stopped and reversed would be considered "FLAT" (mathematically) no pancake necessary.

Conservation of momentum

Only in the direction of the force.

Then you will accelerate the centre of mass according to F=ma If you do this to a billiard ball in "outer space" (no table) you will also impart rotational motion. Careful with the point of contact and direction of force as they will "want" to change if we are not careful.

F=ma It does not matter if it acts through the centre of mass. It will accelerate the centre of mass of that "body" in the direction of the force. It does not matter what shape, rigidity or "coherence" the body, gas cloud or "deformable object" is getting "accelerated". The centre of mass will accelerate according to F=ma, in the direction of the force except for relativistic effects If it does not act through the centre of mass it will also impart a torque or moment on the body.

They find them a lot more interesting...due to their magnetic personalities.

What does this refer to?

So is the subtended angle corrected for the presumed hubble expansion (which would exagerrate the subtended angle) that is at right angles to the hubble expansion that causes the redshift? And the difference in diameter required to explain the discrepancy on it's own would a factor of roughly 3 then? (square root of 10) Is the missing matter (percentage wise) constant with distance?

Not sure but a thought came to mind when I read the title: If the Hubble Constant was really constant then the Hubble "increase in volume rate" would be increasing with time. Seems obvious now that I've typed it.

How do we know that Galaxies aren't smaller and therefore require less "dark matter" to hold them together? What factors are taken into account? Distance (redshift) angle subtended (is that the correct term) How much stronger (percentage wise) would gravity have to be to not require dark matter?